< September 21	September 23 >

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 18:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - re-creation of previously deleted category, speedy tag removed with the false claim that the previous CFD is irrelevant. Reasons for deletion not addressed by the re-creation. Category was created by an editor who in his edit summary acknowledged he was re-creating a deleted category but re-created it without regard to that consensus anyway. Otto4711 (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I am surprised to hear that there is anything against "Foo characters" and this category is mainly a container category for presumably valid subcats. Occuli (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning behind the deletion of most of these categories is that they tend to collect articles on characters associated with the category subject and since characters associate with a lot of other characters they would wind up with a bunch of clutterful categories. Otto4711 (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While 4 of the sub-cats may have a reason to be grouped together, including Category:Anarky is a stretch. And honestly, this cat would be a case to have nil in the articles section. Based on the source material - comic book related articles - Foo characters or Foo related characters do tend to expand beyond a reasonable point. In the case of Batman, the potential pool covers any character that has appeared in any of the scores of Batman related comic book titles as well as any character that has been routinely paired with Batman. Roughly half, minimum, of the DC characters. I'm all for restricting what goes into these types of categories, and if this one cannot be paired down and held there, it should go.
And Otto, an editor does have the right to recreate a category if they feel that either 1) consensus has changed or 2) the proposed use is sufficiently different or restricted from what was removed. This was recreated over a year after the original CfD and stood for just over a year before your speedy. While the edit summary removing the speedy is not quite correct - the old CfD is relevant - the intent is sound - consensus may have changed. - J Greb (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to where the above re-creation criteria are listed, because I'm unfamiliar with them. Suggesting that any editor can re-create any category if they feel - without any supporting evidence - that consensus has changed seems like a really bad way to operate given that it takes 30 seconds to create a category and seven days to delete one. Otto4711 (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

((Parent category)) - as well as the initial edit summary. The editor made a good faith effort to provide a navigation link for the list category and the TV series character categories. The rub comes in with 7 of the articles that have been added to the category. ("List of Batman Family enemies" would ideally just get rotated into Category: Lists of Batman characters.)
And IIUC, the idea of speedy deletion related to categories is for cases where 1) the category was recently deleted or 2) an older deletion where similar categories are still being removed. Now, are we removing "Foo character" categories that are intended to just act as parents for list cats and tightly character cats? Also along those lines are we deleting categories that collect characters that have only appeared in that show? (And that may remove the reason this cat was recreated.) - J Greb (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other Foo character categories like this one of which I'm aware because they were all deleted around the same time this one was. Otto4711 (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does that include character categories for TV shows and/or films?
I ask because if those types of categories have been removed, then the 3 subs here need to be looked at. And keep in mind, character categories for comics tend to be messy since the characters are not necessarily restricted to only one series/title. Films and TV shows tend to have a more constrained list of articles, if a character list doesn't already exist. If lists are favored, and those three cats wind up going away, there is no reason for a parent category for the franchise to exist. - J Greb (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting deleting any of the existing sub-categories. Categories for the characters within a specific film or TV show are well established and clearly appropriate for navigational purposes. Otto4711 (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then what we are looking at is reigning the nommed cat in to being just a parent category, no extras. - J Greb (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well-populated structure that organizes a productively large group of articles and subcategories that are unified by this defining characteristic. Kudos to whoever took the bold step of recreating a category that is a clearly effective aid to navigation, the true purpose of the category system, not the arbitrary imposition of antiquated consensus. Past consensus to keep has never been effective at stopping future repeated nominations until the desired result of deletion is achieved (only at which point is it demanded that consensus must be respected at any and all costs, damn the consequences to Wikipedia). Alansohn (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually... if categories are rapidly renommed after a keep, the nomming editor get told to quit gaming the system. Same thing for quick recreations after a delete result. And you may want to double check, but one of the core principle for Wikipedia is the idea of consensus. - J Greb (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a world of difference between periodically re-nominating categories to see if consensus about them has changed and unilaterally re-creating categories without consultation. Editors also frequently comment in re-nominated categories that the category was nominated recently before and cite that as a reason to keep (as with this recent rename CFD). Throwing around smear words and phrases like "antiquated consensus" and "damn the consequences" strikes me as soapboxing and borderline failure to assume the good faith of those who re-nominate a previously kept category to check whether consensus has changed. Funny how ignoring consensus is A-OK in your book when you agree with its outcome (as with this re-creation) but an abomination when you don't. Otto4711 (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The previous cfd is not 'recent' at all (June 2007). 4 of the 5 subcats did not exist in June 2007 so the earlier cfd is barely relevant. We don't know which 26 articles (26 is mentioned in the discussion) were in the category in 2007 (unless we wish to sift through Cydebot's billion edits since then) but it is quite likely that they are now legitimately collected in the subcats (the 3 subcats under 'B' happen to contain 26 articles between them). (Most of the top-level articles now could be subcatted into 'Alternate versions of Batman characters'.) Occuli (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per June 27 CfD. It seems to have been too messy in the past. While it may not be that messy yet, there is still zero reasons given as to why this will not happen again if it happen before. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems a very sensible category to me, and I see no reason to delete it at this moment. Debresser (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Characters that debuted in Batman comics. Here's a new possible scheme that could work. Characters can only debut in one character's comics (excepting comics like World's Finest, which I guess would be two). So all the Batman villains and side characters would end up here, and Spider-Man's would be in another, and the Flash's in another. Reasonable thought?--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if we need that hair-splitting nightmare. It runs up against "Define a 'Batman comic'.". "Is that just Batman or any title Batman is generally associated with?", "Does that include characters from from strips not associated with Batman published in comics associated Batman?" (Detective Comics is considered a "Batman" title but has been an anthology at time with non-Batman related strips.) "What about character associated with Batman introduced for 1 or 2 stories in a comic not associated with Batman?", and so on. - J Greb (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Occuli.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Jafeluv (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small eponymous category with little or no growth potential. Contents are interlinked through text and if desired a template can be created. Otto4711 (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep having no "growth potential" is a now a ground for a category not existing at all? Also, just because a list and template may exist doesn't mean that a category should be deleted! ninety:one 19:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, being small with no potential for growth has long been a ground for deleting categories. Otto4711 (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, no. It says small by definition, and this is not in the same vein as the examples given. Deleting this category wouldn't serve any kind of purpose whatsoever; it's is deletion for deletion's sake. (I feel an essay coming on!) ninety:one 20:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite...
A category should be a navigation tool in most cases. Looking at the articles housed here, all three of them should be fairly well interlinked. Those linkages make a category unnecessary. Having it feels more a kin to having a cat for the sake of having a cat.
And yes, the category fits the "small" concept. - J Greb (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – it is small and, to boot, eponymous. Occuli (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as the editor who created this category, I think an explanation is an order. I created it some months ago, after it was announced that the character would return to publication following a multi-year-long period of obscurity, and that the appearance would be a major event. I anticipated that the storyline would generate enough buzz that it would become notable in its own right, and another Anarky related article would be created. I also foresaw the need to create categories for other Batman villains; most notably the Joker. Moving on to other projects, I didn't really follow up with my intention of turning this category into a mere one among many to fall under a "Batman family enemies" category. It has also become apparent that I overestimated how important the character would be following the Dec. '08 revamp. In creating it, I largely acted prematurely. I won't disagree with anyone who tries to delete it now. --Cast (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the category, you can add ((db-author)) to the category page if you want, although because of this debate the speedy deletion may be declined. Otto4711 (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Jafeluv (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization; we don't have transient categories of candidates for every political office in the world. If kept, at least rename, since the initial editor must have been "distract"ed when typing the title. R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A rare example where overcategorization is a relevant issue. If kept, I also assume that we should pluralize the title. If there were only one candidate I would also agree that WP:OC#SMALL issues might be legitimate, as well. Alansohn (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, else rename per nominator. Debresser (talk)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. This was a complicated discussion with good arguments on both sides, so I'll expand a little.

The concerns about the term "half blind" being insulting and ambiguous and having no objective definition could be solved by renaming the category to a more correct name, such as Category:Partially sighted people or Category:People with one functional eye. However, the issue about half-blindness not being a "defining characteristic" has not been substantially addressed by those advocating keep, and it would remain a problem even if the category was renamed to one of the proposed names. Note that categories should be based on "essential, 'defining' features of article subjects". There are also concerns about the proposed alternative names like "partially sighted" and "partially blind" lacking an objective definition. In my view both the numbers and the strength of arguments are in favour of deletion as opposed to renaming the category. Jafeluv (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: BLP issues, we are not doctors. also, so far the list is uncited. Off2riorob (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also are they to be labeled half blind or half seeing? Labeling people like this is similar to labeling them as religious, we really need either a doctors statement or a statement from the subject that they themselves consider that they are half blind. Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting. Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - regardless of the BLP concerns, there is simply no definition as to what constitutes being "half-blind". Otto4711 (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nonsensical reasoning from nom: The status of someone's sight can be determined from cited facts from their article. Using your logic, every category that pertains to a physical characteristic of a living person would be deleted for vague "BLP issues". And we don't normally use self-published sources - I fail to see why they would be required for this over any other type of statement? ninety:one 19:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After edit to nom: it's a category, it should be cited on an article by article basis... ninety:one 19:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination makes no sense. Categories do not need to be cited; their use on a particular page does. As far as I can tell, this began at Gordon Brown, where the verified text says he lost all the vision in one eye while at university. -Rrius (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The category is vague and ill-defined. It's being used at Gordon Brown and Horatio Nelson to mean "people who are blind in one eye", and could be replaced with a more accurate category with that name. For people who are partially blind in both eyes, "people who are partially blind" would be a much better category, removing arguments about whether someone is half-blind or three-quarters-blind etc. "half-blind" also carries slang overtones that we don't need. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the answer is to change its name, not to delete it. -Rrius (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would be fine with that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Calling someone half-blind is generally considered an insult, so it is a really inappropriate category to use in BLPs. Even as a medical category it is badly defined: Is someone with perfect vision in one eye and 2% vision in the other half-blind? Someone with 50% vision in each eye? Someone who congenitally only has one (perfectly good) eye? Someone who lost an eye in an accident but has full sight in the other? As for having a category of "people blind in one eye", I am not in favour of creating such a category, or similar categories. --JN 466 21:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711. In some sense, color blind is considered half-blind. The category seems to be created for the British prime minister. Bad faith creation, so delete.--Caspian blue 21:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The category seems to be created for the British prime minister" - based on what exactly have you made that claim? ninety:one 22:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People with one functional eye. Could include Sandy Duncan and others who have lost the use of an eye. Straightforward, clearly defined, and non-pejorative that way. Durova³²⁰ 21:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the reword :) but isn't it a rather daft category regardless? I can see Category:People with one functional ear, Category:People with nine intact fingers, Category:People with eight intact fingers (etc.), Category:People with one functional leg, Category:People with one functional arm and so on coming up next. I don't like it, it's not encyclopedic. --JN 466 21:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia has featured lists about people with medical conditions (epilepsy, HIV, brain tumors). Why would categories be less encyclopedic? Durova³²⁰ 21:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Half-blind" is ambiguous. If "one functional eye" is meant, how is this defining? Would it include people who lost vision in one eye in old age? Why not? Medical categories should be reserved for those with conditions that truly define who they are (a controversial statement, yes—but true in this context, IMO). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with that. JN 466 17:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. "Half blind", although correct, could be construed as derogatory. I think "partially sighted" is the right PC term. Viewfinder (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that "partially sighted" is the commonly used term (it just occurred to me, 24 hours later, but you got there first). However, this too needs some definite criteria to be a useful category. --JN 466 17:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is not the same as being blind in one eye. Lacking a better proposal, I'm leaning delete as ambiguous and probably not defining or if defining being a maintenance nightmare to keep the category focused. Vegaswikian (talk)
Delete "People who have lost an eye" or "People who have worn an eyepatch", might be interesting categories, but this category does not appear to be capturing a defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly what do you mean by "defining characteristic"? I think many perfectly valid categories would fail if you use those words in the way they are normally meant. Aren't categories meant to lump articles together so that someone interested in the topic may be able to find related articles? In the article tinnitus, there are 51 sufferers listed. Would it be out of bounds to put them in a category called "people with tinnitus" or "people with auditory disorders" because tinnitus does not define them? -Rrius (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Category:People with tinnitus was deleted a year ago in favor of listing its contents in the article for verifying to reliable sources. Otto4711 (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename. Nom's rationale does not make sense. We are not doctors, true (well, actually he should speak for himself), but that does not prevent us from writing well-referenced and quite in-depth articles about specific diseases. By the same argument, we should then remove Category:Jews and Category:Christians because we are not... I don't know... theologists? Please... A less contentious name to avoid upsetting PC crybabies could be better, but half-blind sounds good to me. 123.218.161.148 (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 123.218.161.148 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete since there is no objective definition of what half blind means. While we could limit it to people who have one functioning eye, is that defining? Does someone who has an accident and loses sight in one eye belong in a category for someone who lost sight in one eye from a disease or did damage to their eye? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator. I was looking back at this and all the comments and thought to have a look at the Blindness article here, there is no mention in that article of half blindness, I totally agree with the people that have commented that the term half blind is difficult to define and vague. Try this, close one eye....what can you see? ... everything!...what you lose is your depth of vision, your spacial understanding, your sense of distance and the 3D aspects of vision that having two eyes working together to focus on a single point in front of you. The term half blind is derogatory and not a true medical condition, partially sighted would be the modern term. Here is a link to a google search which brings up almost nothing, one slang defenition, "alcohol intoxicated. : Four cans of beer and she was half-blind." and a reference to the biblical def and of course wikipedia's catagory! .. and I found this on a blog "SHOCK NEWS: GORDON BROWN DEAF AS WELL AS (HALF) BLIND" all in all a motley crue. Delete asap. Off2riorob (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename. I'm cretator of this category. We should categolize biographies by medical condition. If my expression was'nt so good, Improving will make the settlement. I think the concept of this category is clear. If this category is deleted, which category does Mr. Nominator delete next? What categories are left? --Paladin R.T. (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the -present title is confusing--I do not think most people would say that someone who has good function vision with only a single eye (losing only stereoscopic vision) would be described as half-blind. A person is half-blind is someone who can just barely see. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename. The purport of this category is distinct. Losing one eye's vision is declared in each page. Trival matters don't beget deletion. Nom shouldn't pose delate, but rename. --Jun Nijo (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The statement that "trivial matters don't beget deletion" directly contradicts the guideline on categorization here. You can debate whether or not this is "trivial", but once it's acknowledged it is trivial, deletion is certainly begotten. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. How do you define "half-blind" exactly. Change to Partially blind people or Category:People with one eye, depending on what this is supposed to be about. Personally I believe the former would be a more useful category. I don't see any more BLP issues in it than any other category (other than perhaps Category:People). OrangeDog (talk • edits) 22:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; not a defining characteristic.- Gilliam (talk) 06:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was going to suggest this should be renamed to something like Category:Partially sighted people, but thinking about it's just a bad idea for a category. Most people end up with poor eyesight if they live long enough, so such a category would include far too many people; it's non-defining. Even if this is meant as 'people lacking sight in one eye', I don't see that as significant enough that it needs a category. Robofish (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Canadian male basketball players to Category:Canadian basketball players

Nominator's rationale: or maybe delete. Inappropriate. Magioladitis (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Canadian basketball players (who are assumed male - there is a women's subcat). Occuli (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an emerging branch of the tree for sports. Women and men compete separately (in most sports - equestrian would be one exception) and our catting should reflect this reality. Mayumashu (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is reflected by having a subcat (sometimes controversial, such as 'pool players') for females (or for males if the sport/profession is predominantly female, such as 'models'). Occuli (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Canadian basketball players.--Karljoos (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Venerated Catholics; further nominations likely needed to resolve the situation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Venerable people to Category:Venerated people

Nominator's rationale: Rename - I'm not a subject matter expert but given that all of the sub-cats use "venerated" the parent should probably match. Otto4711 (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't there be a merger here between Category:Venerable people and Category:Venerated Catholics? ninety:one 20:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Venerated Catholics based on this category's description as "Roman Catholics declared Venerable." --RL0919 (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the sub-cats that all use "Christians"? Otto4711 (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on their descriptions, which use the terminology for Catholic sainthood, it would appear that they should be renamed also. --RL0919 (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Canadian Football League Most Outstanding Player Award winners. Jafeluv (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:CFL MOP Award winners to Category:Canadian Football League Most Outstanding Player Award winners

Nominator's rationale: Rename to full, unabbreviated name for greater clarity (it took me a moment until I realized what a "MOP" was) and to reflect sister category Category:Canadian Football League Most Outstanding Canadian Award winners as well as parent Category:Canadian Football League trophies and awards. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There is no reason not to spell it out completely and every good reason to do so. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:CFL's Most Outstanding Player Award winners to match title of parent article. I would support spelling out CFL in the topmost parent category, where there is no context, and this should be applied as a general rule. Alansohn (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to spell out abbreviations. I could have sworn this category already existed under the full name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per guideline to aviud abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Jafeluv (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:Le Redoutable class submarines (1931) to Category:Redoutable class submarines (1931)
Category:Le Redoutable class submarines to Category:Redoutable class submarines (1967)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match respective main articles of Redoutable class submarine (1931) and Redoutable class submarine (1967), and to disambiguate the latter category. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom for agreement with article titles and proper disambiguation. Maralia (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent articles. Alansohn (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. As long as you don't nominate Category:Yellow submarines for merging into Category:Coloured submarines. Debresser (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename to Category:Afghan governors (pluralise; speedy criterion #3). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Afghan governor to Category:Afghani governors

Nominator's rationale: Pluralized and using the correct adjectival form of "Afghan" Irbisgreif (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename but to Category:Afghan governors per Category:Afghan people by occupation. Occuli (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but to Category:Afghan governors would be a good idea. The correct/official/standard adjectival form is "Afghan" not "Afghani". "Afghani" is the currency of Afghanistan. (Ketabtoon (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- My mistake. Afghan governors it is. It's speedy-able then. Irbisgreif (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename--Karljoos (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So, when are they going to rename the category? (Ketabtoon (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. (At close, category only contained two empty subcategories, so nothing is being lost by deletion.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary overcategorisation Magioladitis (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Basketball players by century for now. Down the road, there may be a move to upmerge further. A straight delete would disrupt the tree, removing links from these bios to Category:People by occupation and century Mayumashu (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The category contains only one entry (Tornanádaska), which is a village in Hungary. The article Tornanádaska does not mention anything to do with "Gyulay family". It therefore appears to be a pointless category. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since I wrote the above, one more article (Mintia, Hunedoara) has been added to the category. This too does not mention the Gyulay family. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Another article, Ferencz Gyulai, has been added. These articles are all relatively new and seem to be transfers from the Hungarian Wikipedia that have not yet been fully translated, so it is possible that this is all part of a work in progress. Has anyone asked the creator for an explanation? --RL0919 (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – the related articles in Hungarian Wikipedia do mention 'Gyulay', eg Tornanádaska. It is however a better plan to finish the translation before populating categories. Occuli (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small eponymous category whose contents are being shoehorned in under some pretext or another when they don't mention the family in question. Articles on family members tend to be well-interlinked anyway so categories are rarely needed except for the most expansive of families. Otto4711 (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and renominate in another month if necessary. Let's not bite the newbies. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Jafeluv (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Type XVIIB U-boats to Category:Type XVII U-boats

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Three of the seven completed Type XVII U-boats were of the XVIIB design. Up-merge due to small total number of XVII boats, and per precedent with other U-boat type categories. For example: there's only Category:Type VII U-boats and not Category:Type VIIA U-boats, Category:Type VIIB U-boats, Category:Type VIIC U-boats, Category:Type VIIC/41 U-boats, Category:Type VIIC/42 U-boats, Category:Type VIID U-boats, or Category:Type VIIF U-boats. Similarly with other types. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge The categories are sufficiently close that they share a single article as their lead article. Nor is the number of contained articles likely to require a split. All of the use cases for categorization would seem to be met better by one single category than these separated categories. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Andy Dingley. --RL0919 (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom; categorization by subclass isn't particularly helpful or necessary here. Maralia (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. Good argument. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Philosophical problems. Jafeluv (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category is a bad idea Pollinosisss (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reinstate the category text and articles so it can be properly discussed (per the cfd notice "Please do not empty the category ... while the discussion is in progress"). Occuli (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have now reinstated the content of this category, as requested. The only page in the category is Unsolved problems in philosophy, which is a redirect to Philosophical problems. The category has existed since 2 October 2005, and has never had any other page in it. I see no point in this category. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google cache shows 8 articles in the category, all removed today by the nom. (I have restored these, pending the outcome of the cfd.) Occuli (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 'a bad idea' is insufficient rationale for deletion. Occuli (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page - Wikipedia:Categories for discussion bad ideas should be nominated for deletion which is what I did. If this category's problematic existence isn't as self apparent as I assumed I will be glad to expand further. Pollinosisss (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd get to explaining, as this seems a valid category to me. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a philosophy problem is unsolved then all philosophers who have claimed to have solved it must be wrong. Many philosophy schools felt they had all the answers, to start enumerating "unsolved" philosophy problems is to reject certain schools of though. This would seem to be quite the opposite of neutrality to me. Pollinosisss (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you are arguing for, then, is a rename? To something like category:major questions in philosophy. Irbisgreif (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best to just make the articles in the current category point to the category category:Philosophical problems. Pollinosisss (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Philosophical problems. The nomination doesn't give a particularly compelling argument, but there are obvious POV problems with this category. Followers of one philosopher/school may consider an issue to have a clear answer, while others may consider the matter "unsolved". Since essentially every position in philosophy is disputed, this category could be empty or filled with every article about a philosophical problem, depending on how the POV issues are handled. So just put the articles in a category that identifies them neutrally instead. --RL0919 (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Philosophical problems. Philosophical problems are by definition unsolvable, as the main article redirect for Unsolved problems in philosophy acknowledges. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Philosophical problems. If there's a category Unsolved problems in philosophy then you'd expect to find a category Solved problems in philosophy, which might be hard to populate (though if anyone has any ideas...)
Upmerge to Category:Philosophical problems to avoid wp:npov question. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge into Category:North Carolina wineries. Jafeluv (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The parent category Category:North Carolina wineries only contains 3 articles, so it seems unnecessary to further categorize by valley/region. The only category with such further categorization is Category:California wineries but that has many more articles, reflecting the much larger wine industry in California. Tassedethe (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into parent. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge with no prejudice to recreation as new articles are created. Alansohn (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Alansohn. Debresser (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename, except for the last one. I'm going to rename all but the last one as nominated, largely for the sake of consistency with the previous CfD on this issue and so we can get the issue of adding "Ocean" out of the way, since there is consensus that that at least needs to be done. However, I think Jason Rees does raise a valid point about the official spelling of the name by the WMO. There is no consensus yet on whether to use "Southwest or "South-West". For that reason, the last category will not be renamed and this close does not prohibit the categories from being renominated for renaming to the "South-West" spelling, or renomination of the last one to rename to "Southwest". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Southwest Indian cyclones to Category:Southwest Indian Ocean cyclones

Category:Southwest Indian cyclone disambiguation to Category:Southwest Indian Ocean cyclone disambiguation

Category:1997-98 Southwest Indian cyclone season to Category:1997-98 Southwest Indian Ocean cyclone season

Category:1998-99 Southwest Indian cyclone season to Category:1998-99 Southwest Indian Ocean cyclone season

Category:1999-00 Southwest Indian cyclone season to Category:1999-00 Southwest Indian Ocean cyclone season

Category:2000-01 Southwest Indian cyclone season to Category:2000-01 Southwest Indian Ocean cyclone season

Category:2001-02 Southwest Indian cyclone season to Category:2001-02 Southwest Indian Ocean cyclone season

Category:2002-03 Southwest Indian cyclone season to Category:2002-03 Southwest Indian Ocean cyclone season

Category:2003-04 Southwest Indian cyclone season to Category:2003-04 Southwest Indian Ocean cyclone season

Category:2004-05 Southwest Indian cyclone season to Category:2004-05 Southwest Indian Ocean cyclone season

Category:2005-06 Southwest Indian cyclone season to Category:2005-06 Southwest Indian Ocean cyclone season

Category:2006-07 Southwest Indian cyclone season to Category:2006-07 Southwest Indian Ocean cyclone season

Category:2007-08 Southwest Indian cyclone season to Category:2007-08 Southwest Indian Ocean cyclone season

Category:2008-09 Southwest Indian cyclone season to Category:2008-09 Southwest Indian Ocean cyclone season

Category:2009-10 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season to Category:2009-10 Southwest Indian Ocean cyclone season

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename from ambiguous name to precise name that matches other cyclone basins in the Indian Ocean. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename But to Category:South-West Indian Ocean cyclones Category:South-West Indian Ocean cyclone disambiguation Category:1997-98 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season so we can have some consistency with the season articles and the WMO.Jason Rees (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The proposal to use South-West as opposed to Southwest goes against the basin names in the lead article and introduces a problematic spelling and typographic issue that we can avoid with the change as proposed. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That can be fixed easily and in my opinon it doesnt introduce problematic spelling and typographic issues since the World Meterological Organisation says its the South-West Indian Ocean as opposed to the Southwest Indian Ocean. Also if you change the categories you have to change all of the articles and talkpage archives which all use South-West per the WMO. Also why should WP not be using the offical names for the basins? Jason Rees (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also i oppose this one since its in the right place :Category:2009-10 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season to Category:2009-10 Southwest Indian Ocean cyclone season Jason Rees (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why when the offical name of the basin is the South-West Indian Ocean.Jason Rees (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Jafeluv (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:YOURCODENAMEIS:MILO albums to Category:Yourcodenameis:milo albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match main article Yourcodenameis:milo. Tassedethe (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query – there is some evidence that the band used uppercase. Do we override the actual spelling of names? (There was a similar band cfd a few days ago.) Occuli (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I always thought that this was covered under WP:MOSTM: avoid the use of non-standard capitalization. WP:MOSTM uses the band Kiss as an example, i.e use Kiss not KISS. Tassedethe (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that seems entirely clear (and would have simplified a previous cfd argument about HawkWind). Occuli (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. And wp:mos is clear about capitalisations like this one. Debresser (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Converts to Protestant Christianity from Eastern Orthodoxy to Category:Converts to Protestantism from Eastern Orthodoxy
Category:Converts to Protestant Christianity from Islam to Category:Converts to Protestantism from Islam
Category:Converts to Protestant Christianity from Judaism to Category:Converts to Protestantism from Judaism
Category:Converts to Judaism from Protestant Christianity to Category:Converts to Judaism from Protestantism
Category:Converts to Eastern Orthodoxy from Protestant Christianity to Category:Converts to Eastern Orthodoxy from Protestantism
Category:Converts to the Bahá'i Faith from Protestant Christianity to Category:Converts to the Bahá'i Faith from Protestantism
Category:Converts to Pagan religions from Protestant Christianity to Category:Converts to Pagan religions from Protestantism
Category:Converts to Scientology from Protestant Christianity to Category:Converts to Scientology from Protestantism
Category:Converts to agnosticism from Protestant Christianity to Category:Converts to agnosticism from Protestantism
Category:Converts to atheism from Protestant Christianity to Category:Converts to atheism from Protestantism
Category:Converts to Islam from Protestant Christianity to Category:Converts to Islam from Protestantism
Category:Converts to Catholicism from Protestant Christianity to Category:Converts to Catholicism from Protestantism
Category:Converts to Roman Catholicism from Protestant Christianity to Category:Converts to Roman Catholicism from Protestantism

Nominator's rationale: Rename. When all the religious convert categories were recently renamed, we avoided this issue in order to gain consensus on the rest of the issues and I promised to raise this specific topic after we had completed those renames on the other issues. I now raise the issue of whether to use "Protestant Christianity" or "Protestantism" is category names. I favour "Protestantism", for a number of reasons: (1) the main article is at Protestantism (Protestant Christianity redirects to it) and article titles almost universally favour "Protestantism"; (2) the main category is at Category:Protestantism and its subcategories overwhelmingly use "Protestantism", including Category:Converts to Protestantism, which is a parent of 3 of these (in fact, the nominated catgories are the only ones that use "Protestant Christianity", and most of them were just created by us at CfD); (3) "Protestantism" yields about 3.7 million google hits, while "Protestant Christianity" yields only about 170,000, which is a difference of about 22 times; (4) I'm not convinced there is anything "wrong" with the term "Protestantism", despite what has been raised before about it being disliked by adherents. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename "Protestantism" seems equally clear as a defining group and marginally better in a copywriting sense. Is anyone aware of any possible disparaging connotations to either though? I've lived close enough to Northern Ireland to know that the most innocuous of labels around religion can sometimes have a hidden and offensive meaning.Andy Dingley (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename unless there's protestant Muslims or Buddhists somewhere… (Yes, I'm aware that some sects could be seen as “protest” sects, but that's not the same thing.) Irbisgreif (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on grounds of self-identification. The lead paragraph of the article Protestantism explains that many Protestant groups and individuals do not use the term to define themselves. People may identify themselves as having converted to Anglicanism or evangelicalism, etc, which are Protestant branches within Christianity, but few would say that they had converted to Protestantism. I have no objection to the parent category remaining as "Protestantism", but it seems to me that self-identification is very much the key in this specific context of conversion, and this should override the general preference for consistency in category naming. Category:Converts to Protestantism should be renamed instead. (I declare an interest as a convert to a protestant form of Christianity.) - Fayenatic (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that self-identification is particularly important for the difference between Protestantism and Protestant Christianity. The categories should mirror the article. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support By previous precedent. If Protestant Christianity is being redirected to Protestantism, I see no problem in renaming these categories --^Writer_Listener 20:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Fayenatic, etc. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 15:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator and Alansohn. Debresser (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. The main article is at Protestantism, the proposed name is shorter and there's no ambiguity in the word "Protestantism". I don't understand the argument that in the context of conversion "Protestant Christianity" would be somehow more preferable than in other contexts. Surely these people identify as converts to Anglicanism, Calvinism, Lutheranism etc. rather than Protestantism (and could be subcategorized as such), but how is "Protestant Christianity" – a synonymous term – more preferable here? Jafeluv (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Jafeluv (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Speculative category at best. Many television shows are rarely known as reboots. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only four of the 18 articles in the category actually had the word 'reboot' anywhere in the article (other than this category assignment), two in quotes and one in a source title. The concept of a "reboot" assumes the existence of an ongoing in-universe continuity that is disrupted, but most of these works are remakes or derivatives that would never be assumed to have continuity from prior works except in the wishes of some fans. Something should only be called a "reboot" in an article if reliable sources are calling it such, and from the evidence in the associated articles that would leave a very small and unnecssary category. --RL0919 (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the same rationale as the entries for video games. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 11:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Deleted per request. Other users may wish to nominate Category:Afghan governor to pluralise it and to make its meaning clearer. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I created another category "Afghan governor" with a smaller "g" for governor. I was not able to change the name for this category. thank you Ketabtoon (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Jafeluv (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Very small, unlikely to grow Cybercobra (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While admittedly something of a neologism, folksonomies are a topic of increasing interest in ontology and Web 2.0 / Web 3.0 work. Growth is very likely here. We have an article on folksonomy, the notability of topic and category would seem closely related - is the nominator planning to delete the main article too? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles and categories have different standards and not every article requires its own category (otherwise every article would have its own category). Otto4711 (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A defining subject with ample reason to believe it will grow in the future. Alansohn (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

September 22

Category:Batman characters

Category:Anarky

Category:2009 Candidate for Manhattan Distract Attorney

Category:Half-blind people

Category:Canadian male basketball players

Category:Venerable people

Category:CFL MOP Award winners

French Redoutable classes of submarines

Category:Afghan governor

Category:Basketball forwards by century

Category:Gyulay family

Category:Type XVIIB U-boats

Category:Unsolved problems in philosophy

Category:Yadkin Valley Wineries

Category:Southwest Indian cyclones

Category:YOURCODENAMEIS:MILO albums

Protestant Christianity to Protestantism

Category:Television reboot

Category:Afghan Governor

Category:Folksonomy